A report by a UK consumer magazine has focussed on customer service failings and frustrations among European short haul carriers, leading some of the airlines involved to critisize its methodology and sample size.

Researchers from Which? magazine contacted eight major airlines via various channels including phone call, online chat, email (or, alternatively, an online query form or WhatsApp if no email contact available) and X.  In some cases, not all methods of contact were advertised for all companies (for example, phone numbers or email addresses).

The teams made simple requests such as amending a spelling mistake on the booking or asking for advice on whether their passport is valid for travel to the EU, and in each case recorded how accurate, fast and helpful the interactions were.

READ: US legislators mull extra protection for passengers after Southwest ‘meltdown’

When it comes to using online chat services, Which? researchers found the coordination between bots and live agents to be ”hit and miss’ with easyJet fairing well in the test, but Wizz less so, with the researcher experiencing multiple disconnections before conceding defeat.

Contacting firms through X (formerly Twitter) was generally more successful – researchers had positive interactions with Vueling, BA and Jet2. However, the danger of being scammed on social media makes this the most risky method of contact – researchers were spammed by multiple accounts masquerading as the airlines, asking for personal information.

In all, the magazine’s researchers experienced a range of inconsistent and at times deeply disappointing customer service interactions – with the likes of Wizz Air, Ryanair, KLM and Vueling ‘falling short of expectations’.

However, the magazine’s methodology, and the small sample size in particular has irked the airlines involved.

“We do not accept these findings. Which? has not been transparent with its methodology, only asking a handful of people to give their opinion and attempting to disguise it as representative. It is simply not accurate or fair”, said a spokesperson for Wizz Air. “Our customer service teams deal with thousands of customers a day providing the support and assistance they require.”

Vueling suggested that the report should have been based on more data.  “Occasional challenges are not indicative of our overall service quality” a spokesman said in a written statement. “We continuously evaluate our procedures to guarantee the best customer service and take the areas of improvement pointed out by the survey very seriously.”

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “This research is but a snapshot of the frustrations travellers face – however we know from the hundreds of complaints we receive every year that these issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

“It’s unacceptable that such haphazard customer service has become the norm in the travel industry, and it is essential that airlines raise their standards and make it easier for passengers to get timely and effective solutions when they encounter a problem”.

“The government must prioritise giving the Civil Aviation Authority stronger powers, including direct fining powers, so it can properly hold airlines to account when they fail to comply with consumer protection laws.”

Wizz Air’s chat bot promised to connect a Which? researcher to a live agent to discuss passport expiration rules, but agents were too busy. The bot advised them to wait a minute before reattempting a live chat connection and did this 12 times in 15 minutes before conceding defeat.

A second attempt, this time to amend a misspelt name, was better, providing clear instructions on what to do. However the bot could not make the amendment on the passenger’s behalf, as a real customer service agent might have been able to.

easyJet was more successful at showing how chatbot and live agents can work well together. When a researcher asked to amend a spelling mistake on the booking, the bot explained how it could be done through the website, but also offered to connect the researcher to a live agent to do it on their behalf.

For non-urgent queries, email contact also proved difficult in many cases. Jet2 and Ryanair for instance did not offer email as an option, but those that did were not necessarily helpful; British Airways, Vueling and Wizz Air either did not reply, or failed to provide useful information when they did. In contrast, easyJet replied every time – generally helpfully – and Tui’s online query form and KLM’s alternative, WhatsApp, were both effective.

The Which? researchers discovered that finding a phone number and then accessing help was not always straightforward, and a telephone contact for existing bookings was only immediately obvious to the researchers on Tui and Vueling’s sites. However, the first call to Vueling failed as the inquiry was misheard, offering directory options to choose from that did not suit Which? ‘s inquiry. Before the researcher could decide which to go for, the call was disconnected. In all, Vueling hung up on Which? on three out of six attempts.

Ryanair’s automated system also hung up on researchers. On the first occasion, Which?’s caller was told that the phone number they were ringing from didn’t match the booking reference and cut them off. A second call was disconnected as the flight was not within 30 days. Researchers finally got through when trying the day before the flight.

KLM meanwhile was unable to help when asked about gluten-free menus. In another instance, rather than offering a simple resolution to correct a spelling mistake, they required a picture of the passport to be emailed across – but when the researcher phoned back and got a different agent they were able to amend it there and then.

Getting help from Wizz Air could prove to be an expensive business. The number most immediately obvious both on the airline’s own website and when searching through Google charges a staggering £1.45 a minute.The airline has a local-rate number buried on its site – but one researcher gave up trying to find it after 30 clicks. Another eventually did find it, under the “special assistance” section.

Contacting firms through X (formerly Twitter) was generally more successful – researchers had positive interactions with Vueling, BA and Jet2. However, the danger of being scammed on social media makes this the most risky method of contact – researchers were spammed by multiple accounts masquerading as the airlines, asking for personal information.

In all, Which?’s researchers experienced a range of inconsistent and at times deeply disappointing customer service interactions – with the likes of Wizz Air, Ryanair, KLM and Vueling falling short of expectations.

It is imperative that airlines take action to make it easier for their customers to get timely and effective solutions to their problems. This current lack of effective customer service and contact methods by some airlines can have serious consequences when customers are trying to get advice, refunds or help with rerouting when flights are delayed or cancelled.

It is important that airlines improve their standards, More generally, Which? believes it is essential that the new government prioritises giving the Civil Aviation Authority direct fining powers, both to deter airlines from mistreating customers, and to ensure that airlines can be held properly to account when they fail to uphold consumer law.

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:

“This research is but a snapshot of the frustrations travellers face – however we know from the hundreds of complaints we receive every year that these issues are just the tip of the iceberg.

“It’s unacceptable that such haphazard customer service has become the norm in the travel industry, and it is essential that airlines raise their standards and make it easier for passengers to get timely and effective solutions when they encounter a problem.

“The government must prioritise giving the Civil Aviation Authority stronger powers, including direct fining powers, so it can properly hold airlines to account when they fail to comply with consumer protection laws.”